There’s been lots of talk recently about the limitations of protected areas, and some of that theme is captured in the other “Land’s’ End?” essays. Really, the debate is about how best to expand the concept of a protected area to account for the changed realities of the 21st century. Climate change may threaten the biodiversity of virtually every protected area on Earth, rendering decades of conservation investment moot. And of course the reality of climate change will require a new way of planning for protected areas that aims to create a resilient network of parks. More broadly, there is an increased focus on the role protected areas play in protecting and enhancing the benefits nature provides to people, particularly the world’s poorest and most needy. This focus, too, will require changes in how we think about the idea of a “protected area.”

I support this expanded conception of a protected area, and want to be part of that debate. However, I sometimes think all this talk is a bit overblown. Every generation of conservation biologists and planners has changed how they think about protected areas and what they are good for — why should ours be any different? More importantly, it’s crucial that conservationists tell the world that we aren’t backing away from the protected-area strategy one inch. Protected areas are arguably the greatest success of the environmental and conservation movement. (What else is there? The Endangered Species Act? The Clean Water and Clean Air Acts? The concept of an environmental impact statement?). It’s hard to think of anything else we’ve done that’s protected nearly as much wildlife. Creating protected areas remains The Conservancy’s core business, and it is one of the few things I feel confident claiming we do better than almost any other NGO. We cannot abandon our core business simply because it won’t get us everything we want, but we can certainly expand into a few more sectors that we must master to fulfill our mission.

My colleague Tim Boucher and I recently tried to analyze global trends in protected area creation in order to answer a simple question: How much more land could be plausibly protected by 2030? The short answer is: “a lot.” Potentially as much land could be protected worldwide in the next two decades as was protected in the last two. There are still many countries that are below the average rate of protection for the international community. One of The Conservancy’s key roles is to help shame these countries into joining the international consensus on protected areas. As many of these countries are poor or political unstable, this requires a different set of approaches than The Conservancy has pursued in its home base, the United States.

However, our research also shows that there are diminishing returns to efforts to create protected areas. As the amount of land previously protected in a country increases, the rate of new protection tends to slow down. The protection that does occur tends to be more multiple-use protected areas, rather than strictly protected parks. The Conservancy’s overall message thus has to be that creating a protected area network is the necessary beginning of a country’s journey to sustainability, not its endpoint. We have to make clear that we are committed to help countries start on that journey, but also that we have an array of conservation strategies ready that help complete the journey, by making land use on the rest of the landscape more sustainable.

Rob McDonald is a Vanguard Scientist in the Central Science Analysis Team of The Nature Conservancy
Image: Field of Owl’s Clover flowers at the Parker Ranch, California. Image credit: Ian Shive.